New anti-American sentiment boiling up
Yomiuri Shimbun
Since New Year, the mass media have been full of policy statements and critical assessments of thought trends and future prospects for Japan in the 21st century.
Some common media responses to issues including economic reconstruction, political reform and how to free Japanese foreign policy from its exclusive focus on the United States have been: (1) to give up Japan's U.S.-reliant policies; (2) to pay more attention to Asia; and (3) to turn more toward Europe than the United States.
Basically, I agree with these ideas. But behind these conclusions a rampant anti-Americanism is beginning to emerge in the minds of some Japanese, which is unlike anything seen before; let's call it a "neo-anti-Americanism." It exactly resembles the anti-Japanese sentiments that Japan's Asian neighbors condescendingly assume in proportion to any improvement in Japan's performance.
There have been two sources of anti-American feeling in the postwar period. The first takes the form of capitalism versus socialism as an extension of leftist thought. The second has a right-wing tinge to it and might be described as an anti-Americanism based on impassioned nationalism. If the Japanese Communist Party and the former Japan Socialist Party represent the left, Shintaro Ishihara and his sympathizers represent the right. Fortunately, the Patriotic Party and other right-wing extremists have not joined the mainstream right-wingers on this issue.
The U.S. economic boom of the 1990s, which coincided with the decade following the end of the Cold War, however, has left the world with the impression of an inward-looking and isolationist nation. In view of the terrorist attacks on the United States and that nation's response to them, a movement is now under way that once again is questioning whether Japan can steer through the 21st century with its hitherto one-sided pro-U.S. tilt. This is the source of the new anti-Americanism.
There is also no denying that the anti-Foreign Ministry sentiment provoked by scandals in that ministry, has developed into anti-American feelings because the leading faction within the ministry is dominated by bureaucrats who started out at the North American desk--a kind of guilt by association as it were.
The advocates of the new anti-Americanism are sensible opinion makers who have hitherto been moderates. That is what makes it so frightening. It may in time encompass the left and the right as well. The neo-anti-Americans claim that the present plight of the Japanese economy is the result of following the American model and consequently Japan must rapidly free itself from it immediately. Having done so, they say, a European model would be instructive; Japan should also make Asia its primary base of operations. The relative decline in Japanese power and the U.S. tendency to pass over Japan are factors bringing these ideas to the surface.
The U.S. position is that, if it succeeds in making its economy thrive through its own efforts, it is envied for being "inward-looking." While if it develops new and highly profitable technologies through hard work, the world demands that the patents be lifted immediately. It is given no credit for being the world's largest donor of humanitarian aid. The feeling of Americans about the way the world looks at their country is "if you are going to criticize us out of spite or envy, the hell with you."
This defiance is quite different from the way Japan behaves. Japan through its own efforts became an economic superpower; it has assumed huge aid obligations vis-a-vis its neighbors and continually apologizes for its war guilt. When anti-Japanese feelings arise, however, Japan shows absolutely no inclination to adopt the American strategy of open defiance. Neo-anti-Americans point to Japan's "lack of strategy," but are they prepared to propose a strategy that involves telling Japan's critics to go to hell? If we dislike the new anti-Americanism then we have to construct a new strategy and a new rationale with the power to replace it and then ever so gradually stand up to the United States. A neo-anti-Americanism of that sort is something even I would be willing to espouse.
Sato is C.V. Starr professor of economics at New York University ***************
washingtonpost.com: French Foreign Minister Criticizes USFrench Foreign Minister Criticizes US
The Associated Press Thursday, February 7, 2002; 6:06 AM PARIS -- Calling the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism "simplistic," French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine accused the United States of ignoring outside viewpoints and failing to take into account problems such as poverty. Vedrine said France stood behind the United States after Sept. 11 and remained committed to fighting terrorism. In a radio interview Wednesday, he said the international community must also address the roots of the problem, such as poverty and injustice, and not simply resort to military solutions. "We're threatened by a new simplistic approach, which is reducing all the world's problems to the fight against terrorism," Vedrine told France Inter radio. Vedrine also suggested the Bush administration's foreign policy ignored outside views. "On taking office, the administration's tendency was to approach world affairs unilaterally, without consulting others, acting on its own interpretation and its own interests," Vedrine said. The foreign minister urged Europeans to speak up when they disagree with U.S. foreign policy, citing the example of the Middle East conflict and the U.S. stance on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "If we're not in agreement with U.S. policy, we must say it," Vedrine said. "For example, unanimously, Europeans do not agree with the White House's Middle East policy and believe it's an error to blindly support Ariel Sharon's policies of pure repression." © 2002 The Associated Press